Turley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
[2012] NSWADT 162
•09 July 2012
Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Turley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 162 Hearing dates: 12 March 2012, 9 July 2012 Decision date: 09 July 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: The decision under review is set aside.
The decision is made that Mr Turley's licence is reinstated.
Catchwords: Firearms Licence - Revocation - Alcohol Dependence - licence reinstated Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Firearms Act 1996
Firearms Regulation 2006Cases Cited: Aubrey v The Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 266
Barrow v The Commissioner of Police [2004] Hearing 06/09/04 - Unreported
Bevan v The Commissioner of Police (2004] NSWADT 1
Commissioner of Police v Gainey [2007] NSWADTAP 23
Feuerstein v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2007] NSWADT 114
Lynch v The Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43
Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28
Weckert v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 197Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mark Turley (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)Representation: S Mainstone, Mainstone Lawyers (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 113292
REasons for decision
GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): Mr Turley ("the Applicant") was the holder of a Category AB firearms licence issued under the Firearms Act 1996 ("the Act"). He has been authorised for firearms in NSW for many years and has held a Category AB firearms licence since at least 1998. The licence was held for the genuine reason of Recreational Hunting/Vermin Control. The current licence was issued in October 2008 and due to expire in October 2013. The licence was suspended on 20 April 2011 and then revoked on 9 August 2011.
The revocation was affirmed on internal review and the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for external review of the decision.
The matter came before me for hearing on 12 March 2012. It did not conclude on that day and was adjourned for further hearing. The matter again came before me on 9 July 2012 and on that occasion I determined that the licence should be reinstated. The Applicant has requested written reasons for my decision pursuant to section 89 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act") and these reasons are provided in accordance with that request.
Background
The background to this matter is not in dispute. The Applicant has had a long-term alcohol dependence that remained untreated. The Respondent's determination was based on the view that the Applicant's alcohol addiction and diagnoses of Alcohol Dependence Disorder raises questions about his ability to exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms.
The Applicant does not dispute this background. At various times he made unsuccessful attempts to move towards sobriety. He did not receive assistance in those attempts. In recent times he has received treatment in relation to the issue, in a structured environment. As a result, he has abstained from the use of alcohol since March 2011.
On 5 March 2011 it was reported to 000 that on 4 March 2011 the Applicant made threats to cut his ex-wife's throat and that concerns were held for the Applicant's welfare.
On 9 March 2011 the Applicant voluntarily sought mental health care at the Northside West Clinic, Wentworthville. The Applicant's admission to the Northside West Clinic was reported to police on 20 April 2011. On that date police suspended the Applicant's firearms licence and seized his firearms.
The Respondent asserted that the Applicant's ex-wife, in breach of section 39(1) (c) of the Act, provided the keys to the Applicant's firearms safe. The Applicant's ex-wife was not authorised to access firearms. The Respondent also asserted that Police found ammunition stored together with the Applicant's firearms in breach of section 40(1)(d) of the Act.
The Applicant's evidence was that his ex-wife visited him whilst he was at the Northside West Clinic. She was of the view that the firearms should be removed from the house and placed into the safe-keeping of a third party whilst he was away. The Applicant agreed and he gave her keys to the firearms safe. He said that he did so on the understanding that she would arrange for an appropriate person, such as a firearms dealer to take possession of the firearms and remove them from his home. The Applicant conceded that his ex-wife does not have a firearms licence but said that he felt that he could trust her to arrange for an appropriate person to take possession of the firearms.
After a stay at the Northside West Clinic the Applicant went to Foundation House, again on a voluntary basis. Whilst he was here that he learnt about the confiscation of his firearms and the suspension of his firearms licence.
The Applicable Law
Section 11(4)(c) of the Act prescribes that a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.
Section 24(2)(b)(ii) of the Act prescribes that a licence may be revoked if the licensee contravenes any provision of the Act or the Firearms Regulation 2006 ("the Regulations), whether or not the licensee has been convicted of an offence for the contravention.
Section 24(2)(c) of the Act prescribes that a licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind.
Section 24(2)(d) of the Act prescribes that a licence may be revoked for any other reason prescribed by the Regulations.
Section 39(1)(c) of the Act requires that a person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable precautions to ensure its safe keeping, that it is not stolen or lost, and that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act requires that, in respect of any firearm to which the licence applies, a licensee must ensure that any ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a locked container of a type approved by the Commissioner and that is kept separate from the receptacle containing any such firearm.
Clause 19 of the Regulations prescribes that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence.
The Commissioner's Case
The reasons for decision provided following the internal review set out a reasonable summary of the Commissioner's case. In those reasons the delegate stated:
You have been authorised for firearms for at least the past 19 years, including 13 years under the current Act. Therefore I believe you should have been well aware of your responsibilities as a licence holder. Your legal representative submits that "there is simply no reason why the decision maker cannot be satisfied that (you) can exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms".
I concede that prior to 20 April 2011 you had not come to adverse police notice for any firearms-related matter. In fact only six months earlier, on 29 October 2010, police had inspected and approved your firearms safekeeping and found no breach of legislation.
However, I find it relevant that such inspections are conducted by prior arrangement between police and the licence holder, essentially providing the opportunity to ensure that all is in order prior to police attending. In my view that reduces the weight that can be assigned to your compliance on 29 October 2010, especially if at a later date your conduct with firearms raises doubts as to your ability and intention to comply with firearms laws. Consequently, although positive weight could have been assigned to your prior history with firearms, I believe that weight is significantly lessened by the safekeeping offences police detected on 20 April 2011.
I note that your legal representative made no submission regarding your firearms contraventions, but I accept the possibility that you did not advise him of your offences, and I note that police have laid no charge to date. However, I advise that once the circumstance to which section 24(2)(b)(ii) is directed (contravention of the Act) is present, the Commissioner may revoke a licence. It has been noted that no guidance is given in the provision as to what factors might be relevant. In this regard the ADT held that relevant factors would include the gravity of the contraventions, any history of contraventions, mitigating circumstances and general public policy considerations.`
It has been held that contraventions in respect of failing to meet the safe storage requirements as set out under Part 4 of the Act are fundamental in nature in that they are contraventions which go to the crux of the principles and objectives of the Act [Bevan v The Commissioner of Police (2004] NSWADT 1 at paragraph [26]]. I therefore give serious weight to the fact that when police seized your firearms, access to the safe was provided by an unauthorised person. This was a direct contravention of section 39(1)(c) of the Act which requires that a person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm. These legislative provisions were also reflected in the Conditions upon which your licence was issued.
Additionally, police found 10 rounds together with a 12 gauge shotgun. This represented a further breach, relating to section 40(1)(d) of the Act. I concede that at least you took some precautions in that the ammunition was within a locked safe. However, I believe that positive factor is far outweighed by the more important consideration, that an unauthorised person had access to the safe. Additionally, it has been held [in Barrow v The Commissioner of Police [2004] Hearing 06/09/04 - Unreported] that "it cannot be said ... that the storage although it did not comply was nevertheless safe. It is not safe unless it complies." The Tribunal further stated that there should be no looking below the standard set by the Act for safe storage.
Clearly legislators intended that failure to comply with storage requirements should lead to the revocation of a licence. The Attorney General [the Hon J W Shaw, in the Second Reading Speech on the introduction of the Bill to Parliament on 25 June 1996, page 3559 Hansard] confirmed this in his statement: "Legislation should have the effect of making failure to store firearms in the manner required an offence, as well as a matter that will lead to the cancellation of the licence and the confiscation of all firearms. The ADT Appeal Panel has also agreed with the frequent statements made in decisions at the Divisional level that the discretion as to revocation should be exercised with the objects of the Firearms Act in mind, in particular those of safety and security in the management of weapons [The Commissioner of Police v Gainey [2007] NSWADTAP 23 at paragraph [20]]. I am therefore satisfied that your licence should be revoked due to your legislative contraventions.
Not in the public interest
The ADT has held that, ordinarily, the exercise of different heads of power should lead to separate examination of the relevant considerations. The considerations that may be relevant to one ground may not be identical to those that are relevant to another ground. There is a danger that if grounds are not examined separately that any appropriate distinctions might be missed [Lynch v The Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43 at paragraph [41]].
Your licence was revoked in part because the Commissioner's delegate found reasonable cause to believe that you may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of your intemperate habits. That conclusion was based on a report dated 29 July 2011 from a Forensic Psychologist.
I accept your legal representative's submission that there are many positive conclusions in that report. I also note that you advised the Psychologist that you have not consumed alcohol since your rehabilitation in March 2011, you attend Alcoholics Anonymous six days per week and you participate in individual counselling on a weekly basis. I assigned that advice positive weight. Therefore I do not seek to rely on the revocation grounds provided by section 11 (4)(c) of the Act because I accept that for six months you have made every effort to break your intemperate habit. Despite that, I remain of the view that your authority for firearms should not be reinstated at this time.
You were asked to provide an assessment of your mental status. I note with interest that it appears you did not seek a report from the Psychologist that was treating you in March 2011 (as your wife advised police). However, I concede that you were not directed to provide a report from that health professional and it was left open for you to obtain a report from another mental health professional who was not treating you.
I also note that the results of the tests which formed part of your assessment indicate that you do not have any clinical depression or anxiety and I agree with your legal representative's submission in that regard.
Your legal representative also draws attention to the opinion that you have mild anger pathology, but that your feelings of anger would not impact on your daily life, and there was a low risk of you committing any criminal offence, particularly of an aggressive nature. Against that opinion balance the concerns raised by a call to 000 on 5 March 2011, from a member of your family. In this call it was alleged that you had threatened to cut your wife's throat, apparently whilst you were affected by alcohol. Your wife attended the police station the next day, safe and well, and advised that the incident had been blown out of proportion. However, I do not accept that is proof that the 000 report was not accurate, as it is equally possible that your wife may have tried to protect you from any consequences. I therefore cannot eliminate the possibility that alcohol may cause you to make threats to harm others. I do not agree that continued access to firearms in these circumstances is in the public interest.
I accept the Psychologist's opinion that there is no indication that you currently suffer from any psychological or psychiatric condition. He further states that you have the ability for rational judgement and the ability to exercise willpower to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement. He also advised his impression that you are "very much accepting responsibility" for your alcohol rehabilitation and you are highly motivated to continue with it.
Despite these favourable opinions, the report also states that the diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence Disorder is currently relevant. Consequently I cannot ignore the fact that this is not the first time you have attempted to eliminate alcohol from your life, but the earlier attempt was without success. It is therefore also relevant that the medical assessment raised the possibility that alcohol relapse could impair your judgement and weaken your control, making you more vulnerable in certain circumstances. I am satisfied that, if that possibility occurred, your possession of firearms may pose a risk to public safety.
The ADT has held that the principal issue is whether there is a risk to the safety of the public if a person retains their firearms licence: [Aubrey v The Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 266 at paragraph [21]]. Although the report states that you are not prone to suffering from depression or any impulse control disorder, it further states that you continue to take Lovan and Seroquel, which are both anti-depressants - no opinion was given on how it would affect your safety with firearms if you ceased taking that medication for whatever reason.
I am satisfied that your safety with firearms is dependent upon your continued abstinence from alcohol, and may also depend on your adherence to a medication regime. Based on the information before me, which includes a relapse into alcohol abuse, I cannot rule out the possibility that the reinstatement of your licence at this time is virtually without risk. In that regard Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28 provides (at paragraph 28):
"The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk."
It is also critical to public safety that applicants for a firearms licence are completely honest in their applications. I am therefore seriously concerned that in your application dated 23 July 2008 you failed to admit to previous psychiatric treatment and medication for alcohol abuse. Had you answered question H(d) of that application honestly, this licence under review may not have been issued. In a recent decision the ADT held that the public interest requires that licensees provide accurate information in regard to their applications as the success of the firearms licensing regime is dependent on that occurring. The Tribunal held that the applicant's individual interest in retaining their licence must be subordinate to the public interest in ensuring the success of that regime. [Weckert v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 197 at paragraph [63]].
Conclusion
I hold the view that it is appropriate to consider and weigh up your interests with those of the wider community. I submit that public safety is the paramount consideration and that the system of firearms controls is intended to be very strict. The principles and objects of the Act confirm that possession and use of firearms is a privilege that is conditional upon public safety. Your licence authorised the genuine reason of Recreational Hunting/Vermin Control. I do not believe your desire to use firearms for sporting reasons should be given more importance than the need for public safety. Additionally, the ADT has held that an applicant's personal interest in returning their licence cannot outweigh the public interest in the maintenance of a safe and responsible system of possession and use of firearms [Feuerstein v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2007] NSWADT 114 at paragraph [90]].
You have contravened fundamental safekeeping provisions of legislation at a time when your capacity for safe possession of firearms would have been considerably impaired due to an Alcohol Dependence Disorder. Although I completely accept you have taken a responsible approach to dealing with your problem with alcohol over the past six months, it is relevant that for the majority of your life (since your twenties) you have maintained a significant alcohol intake leading to alcohol dependency.
Therefore I believe it is simply too soon to say that your diagnosed dependence on alcohol poses no further threat to public safety if you were in possession of firearms. However, if at some point in the future a lengthy period of time has passed without further incident, and you could provide evidence to establish that you have achieved that aim, I accept that a different conclusion may be reached.
For the reasons outlined above I believe the Commissioner's decision was preferable, although I have reached that conclusion based on varied grounds.
Mr Zoppo's submission is essentially that while the evidence indicates that the Applicant has abstained from alcohol since the incident in March 2011, it is too soon to have confidence that the Applicant's sobriety will continue. At this time the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence that there is virtually no risk that the Applicant would relapse to his old behaviour patterns. Until the Tribunal can be so satisfied, the Applicant's licence should not be reinstated.
The Applicant's Case
The Applicant relies on his own evidence and that of Psychiatrist Dr Stephen Hook. Dr Hook provided several reports in relation to the Applicant. The most recent report from Dr Hook ("the Hook Report") is dated 11 May 2012. Dr Hook also gave evidence at the hearing on 9 July 2012 and was cross-examined.
Details of the Applicant's rehabilitation and treatment are given in the report dated 29 July 2011 by Forensic Psychologist Mr W. John Taylor ("the Taylor Report").
The Applicant gave full and frank evidence in relation to his background and acknowledged his dependence on alcohol. He gave evidence in regard to his efforts to address this problem through treatment and abstinence. He regularly attends meetings of alcoholics anonymous and stated that he has not had any alcohol since March 2011.
The Taylor Report
Mr Taylor provided a detailed report in relation to the Applicant's suitability to hold a firearms licence. The report was prepared following a 2½-hour consultation. Mr Taylor concluded:
"3. SUMMARY AND OPINIONS
Mr. Turley provided ... a history of having engaged in the abuse of alcohol and indeed stated that he considers that he has had a long-term alcohol abuse problem. He was able to state that he believes his alcohol abuse was a major factor in the breakdown of his marriage.
He is diagnosed with having had an Alcohol Dependence Disorder and he has undertaken rehabilitation for this on a couple of occasions being when he was 46 years old and again in March 2011. He is also attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous 6 days each week and has weekly counselling for alcohol relapse prevention. The impression was gained that Mr. Turley is very much accepting responsibility for his alcohol rehabilitation and is highly motivated to continue with it.
The results of psychometric tests administered to him indicate he does not have a personality disorder or an emotional disturbance. He is not prone to suffering from depression or any impulse control disorder.
When considering the factors involved in his application to continue to hold a firearm licence a number of avenues of enquiry were pursued. Firstly, it was deemed necessary to determine the extent to which Mr. Turley may have some impulse control disorder which could give rise to impulsive acting out behaviour including the inappropriate use of a firearm. The results of the tests indicate that he would usually have his life well ordered and controlled and would consider the consequences of his behaviour in advance.
About the only time that this may not occur is if he has had an alcohol relapse. When in the state of intoxication his judgement would be impaired and his controls would be weakened. Given the right circumstances this could make him more vulnerable. However, the history he provided was that he has completed an alcohol abuse rehabilitation program in March 2011 and he is continuing with treatment through regular meetings and counselling.
A second factor which was considered to be relevant was the extent to which Mr. Turley may identify with antisocial intentions or may have some feelings of alienation toward authority figures. The results of his tests indicate that he is pro-social in his thinking and attitudes and is generally accepting of social norms.
A third factor is that of anger. Mr. Turley has been assessed as having mild anger pathology suggesting that anger can be a significant problem for him. However the results of this assessment indicate that when feelings of anger arise he is usually able to control them and he does not have an inclination to act out feelings of anger in an impulsive or poorly modulated manner.
A fourth factor is that of mental illness. Mr. Turley did not provide any history of mental illness apart from having suffered from depression and he said that he is continuing to take the medications Lovan and Seroquel. There is no indication that Mr. Turley suffers from any psychological or psychiatric condition which may impact on his ability to exercise continuous or responsible control over firearms. He has the ability to "form rational judgement or to exercise willpower to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement". In my opinion he does not suffer from any mental condition or mental disorder which could potentially put himself or the public safety at risk apart from his potential for alcohol abuse relapse and, as stated earlier, he is dealing with this issue in what seems to be a responsible manner. It does appear to be unlikely that this represents a significant risk in his ability to exercise continuous or responsible control over firearms.
An assessment of potential risk was undertaken using not only psychometric tests but also actuarial analyses. Although these actuarial analyses have been standardised on forensic populations they do provide some indication as to the extent of potential risk for Mr Turley. The results of these indicate that he has a low risk of illegal or aggressive behaviour."
The Hook Report
Dr Hook has seen the Applicant on numerous occasions since his discharge from the Northside West Clinic in April 2011. In a report dated 17 November 2011 Dr Hook advised that the Applicant had remained abstinent from alcohol since April 2011, and that he was actively engaged in Alcoholics Anonymous. He has attended a day program group regularly throughout this period.
Dr Hook advised that the Applicant has exhibited no signs of abnormal mood elevation, significant depression, or psychosis. He ceased antidepressants in August 2011 and had been reducing his mood stabiliser medication. At the time of the November 2011 report Dr Hook observed no deterioration in the Applicant's mental state as a result of the change in his use of medication.
Dr Hook also advised that the Applicant did not show signs of mental disorder, and there were no indications of threat of harm to himself or other persons. He indicated that the Applicant's prognosis is favourable provided he remains abstinent from alcohol.
In a report dated 12 December 2011 Dr Hook advised that the Applicant's mental state was stable.
The Hook Report was provided following a consultation on 22 March 2012. Dr Hook had seen that Applicant since the report was written and had not changed his opinion. Dr Hook advised:
In providing this opinion I have considered both the inpatient and Day Program files of Northside West Clinic, and the records of Foundation House which you have provided (he was only there overnight following his admission to Northside West Clinic).
I first saw Mr Turley in the context of Day Program attendance, following his discharge from Northside West Clinic in April 2011 for alcohol detoxification (under the care of Dr Theodorou). There was a longstanding history of alcohol dependence with binge drinking. There was also a question of bipolar mood disorder, as there had been chronically depressed mood with suicidal thinking at times, but also periods of intense activity. However, it was not clear at that stage whether these mood problems were simply secondary to his prolonged exposure to alcohol.
I have seen him every 2-3 months since then, most recently on 22 March 2012. He has remained sober since his admission. He attends four AA meetings each week and continues to attend a Day Program weekly. He is in a stable living situation and has a supportive relationship. He has been doing some casual maintenance/painting work for friends.
He ceased his antidepressant (fluoxetine) in August 2011 and mood stabilizer (quetiapine) in late 2011. There is no evidence that this has had any adverse impact on his mental state.
He reported occasional disrupted sleep pattern, but generally his sleep is adequate. His mood has been stable with only transient down days - there have been no periods of pervasively depressed mood or suicidal thinking. There is no history suggestive of abnormal mood elevation.
At last review he presented in a clear sensorium. He was pleasant and forthright in manner. He did not appear unduly anxious or agitated. His speech was not pressured and there was no flight of ideas. His affect was reactive. There were no psychotic features, nor indicators of risk of harm to self or others. There are no signs of significant cognitive impairment.
In summary, Mr Turley has achieved a sustained remission from alcohol use, and presents in a normal mental state with no signs of ongoing mood disorder. In these circumstances, there is virtually no risk of Mr Turley being suicidal or having suicidal tendencies.
Under cross-examination Dr Hook conceded that there is a risk that the Applicant could relapse and again engage in alcohol abuse. He agreed that his assessment of the Applicant's suitability to hold a firearms licence is conditional on his continued sobriety. He also agreed that the risk of relapse decreases with a longer period of abstinence from alcohol. However, he regarded the present risk as minimal.
Discussion
I agree with the summary of the applicable legislation and case law as set out in the Respondent's internal review determination. The views expressed in Ward and referred to above have been often cited in decisions of this Tribunal and, in my view, provide an appropriate approach to the assessment of an applicant's suitability to hold a firearms licence.
Given the Applicant's record as a firearms owner, the circumstances in which the alleged offences relating to the storage of his firearms occurred and the period that has passed since those incidents, it is my view that those offences should not prevent the Applicant from again holding a firearms licence.
Of more significance is the alleged threat to the Applicant's ex-wife on 4 March 2011. In my view, the circumstances surrounding that incident demonstrate that, at the time, the Applicant was a risk to both himself and others. That being the case, the decision to cancel the Applicant's firearms licence was the correct one.
However, the evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the risk is no longer present.
Section 63 of the ADT Act sets out the Tribunal's powers when reviewing a reviewable decision. In determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it.
The Taylor Report advised that there was no indication that the Applicant suffers from any psychological or psychiatric condition which may impact on his ability to exercise continuous or responsible control over firearms. At the time Dr Hook gave his evidence he held the view that there was virtually no risk to public safety if the Applicant were given access to a firearm. This view was qualified in that Dr Hook conceded that his view was dependent on the Applicant's continued abstinence from alcohol.
I accept that evidence. I also accept that the degree of confidence in the Applicant's ability to continue his abstinence from alcohol would increase as the period of abstinence increased.
On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that there is virtually no risk to public safety if the Applicant were given access to a firearm.
The Applicant's attempts to move towards sobriety in the past have not been done in the structured environment that we now have. I have formed my view on the evidence before me but it is also in light of the Applicant's intention that this structured environment will continue. I accept that the situation might change if the Applicant were to relapse and again engage in alcohol abuse. There is no way of knowing what is going to happen in the future. However, on present indications, relapse is unlikely to occur if the Applicant maintains his active engagement with Alcoholics Anonymous, a stable living situation and supportive relationships. While I am inclined to the view that with more time my level of comfort would be greater, it is sufficient now to allow the revocation decision to be set aside.
I am satisfied that the present circumstances are such that the correct and preferable decision is that Mr Turley should be allowed to have a firearms licence again.
Order
The decision under review is set aside.
The decision is made that Mr Turley's licence is reinstated.
**********
Decision last updated: 09 August 2012
2
6
3